View Single Post
  #806 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:

>
> >> > I was discussing risk assessment -- actual risk versus perceived risk.
> >> > You appear to be declining that discussion. I'll move on.
> >>
> >> I am presenting organisms as hard-wired for survival, harm-avoidance,
> >> which
> >> I propose forms the basis for morality. How does actual risk versus
> >> perceived risk advance the discussion? It seems like a non-sequitor.

> >
> > Which assumes that we agree that we are hardwired for survival.

>
> No it doesn't. Whether we agree about hard-wiring or not, this line of
> argument seems to be a diversion.


I've stated this at least twice. It is difficult to proceed in a
discussion with you when we disagree on the original premise.

> It's
> > difficult to have a discussion on X when you refuse to accept that I
> > disagree with you on this point. There is ample evidence in humans and
> > other species that we operate contrary to survival which indicates to me
> > that this is NOT hardwired.

>
> Hardwiring does not mean that it absolutely can't be overriden, it means
> it's a powerful instinct. Extremists who commit suicide override it, but
> usually with some kind of fantasy about an afterlife. People who take risks
> generally take safety measures and in addition usually do not believe that
> they will actually suffer serious harm.


Then the "instinct" is not that powerful. I would argue that the level
of fear that one experiences related to perceptions of possible harm is
proportionate to the level of belief that the harm will happen.

We disagree on the original premise. Calling it intrinsic, normal,
instinct, innate, hardwiring, etc. is where we disagree. In my view,
these are learned responses based on prior experience and that which can
be observed in the world.

I live in a society that socializes males to be fearless not fearful.
Most men are even unable to use the term "fear" when referring to
themselves. This is an example of black and white thinking in my view
and leads to all sorts of interesting results.

Rather than acknowledge that I am human, I am male, I experience
emotions and from time to time I experience fear, this socialization
process results and the threat to perceptions of masculinity results in
irrational conclusions. Conclusions such as harm-avoidance is hardwired.
Most fears are irrational and can be be logically demonstrated as such.

I consider the paradoxical theory of change to be fairly consistent in
that one cannot change their fears until they can acknowledge them.
further, it can be reasoned and it has been researched that fears are
often self-fulfilling prophecies in that the individual will seek out
what they fear and even create X in the absence of it.

So, no. We disagree on the the largely heterosexual male perspective of
what is harm-avoidance, the inability to state fears and rationally
assess them.

I am rarely afraid that I will be murdered, but that is the reason I
appreciate the moral code and law against murder -- fear. Rationally,
the chances and situations where this _might_ or _could_ happen are so
remote that I can function. Others can't.

As a result of fear based responses and entire theory of morality
evolves.

> > Feel free to believe what you do because it was taught to you, or you
> > read it, or it is the result of some other combination of factors.
> > Personally, I see evidence that contradicts the belief.

>
> You are ignoring all the evidence that it does exist because of relatively
> rare, explainable exceptions. The vast majority of animal behaviour is
> consistent with hard-wiring for survival.


See above.